This afternoon, after an spending
the day digging post holes in freezing muck in a rambling back yard in the East
End of Louisville, I rode my bike home through the threatening clouds and
traffic, savoring the usual cocoon of effort, physics, tranquility and
awareness while slowly losing the sensation in my toes. After I warmed up a
little I hoped to head over to the University of Louisville to check out the
live streaming of the debate between Bill Nye, the Science Guy, and Ken Ham,
president and co-founder of creationist ministry Answers in Genesis (AiG) and
the Creation Museum. The screening was,
unfortunately, moved to a smaller venue due to an impending ice storm, which is
loading the trees around my neighborhood with tons of freezing icicles. Is this weather divine
commentary? (It does, after all,
engender a hopelessness to almost all who enter the Dantean realm of 21st
century weather reporting, but that’s another story). I’m pretty certain the weather is not a sign
of a divine will, but heck, we’re talking about a conversation with someone who
thinks that the whole universe was created because of us humans, so a few small
changes in temperature and humidity of the local atmosphere don’t seem so
impossible after all. As it turned out
Answers in Genesis had changed their policy of charging $5.00 to stream the
debate at the last minute. They must
have realized that by streaming the debate for free they would get more
exposure, which is what this is all about.
I can’t talk about this debate
without admitting that I’ve been obsessively listening to similar debates on YouTube
since 2006. This drives my wife nuts. It’s a fair question: why is this not a waste
of time? I’ve wondered myself. I have
endured Ray Comfort and
Kent Hovind’s inane assertions about bananas, conspiracy theories,
dinosaurs, and crockoducks. I have wished, temporarily, to divest myself of
human intelligence and live the life of a peaceful sponge while listening to Erik Hovind and Sye ten
Bruggencate. These two use of the
“nuclear option:” an epistemological reductio ad absurdum that they claim shows we can’t know anything unless there is a
God. Bruggencate and Hovind are
merciless bullies who delight in inviting curious people into a conversation
only to make them dupes in their perverse sideshow act. William Lane Craig and Dinesh D’Souza-though not creationists of Ham’s
ilk-stupefy the mind with seemingly erudite attempts to conclude that God
made the universe through the use of axioms that presuppose a creator. There is definitely an arrogance in the
thought one can say the sorts of things D’Souza and Craig say without people
like Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris noticing what’s going on. But for my part, when I first listened to
Craig, I was so bamboozled that I felt I had lost half my intelligence. Craig’s barrage of statements is designed to
make us forget the faulty initial clause, and the first time it worked on me. Richard
Dawkins’ interviews with creationists including Ted Haggard and Wendy Wright are a macabre theatre that tempt me to
despair for humanity. In the case of the
former the bizarre behavior is more understandable now that we know he was quite
possibly wired up to the
eyeballs on some of Walter White's finest meth which he had purchased from his gay lover. The exasperating
pseudoscience of intelligent design, pushed by writers such as Michael Behe, John C. Sanford and John Haas has fortunately
repeatedly been declared a religious belief by US courts rather than a scientific theory. But intelligent design has a life after death
on the airwaves of YouTube. It’s the zombie apocalypse of undead ideas, now
linked to your Google account, whether you like it or not.
But Ken Ham, surprisingly, has less
of a debate-style internet presence than one might expect. Most of his debates are with other Christian
believers who are not young earth creationists.
His internet presence is very much about promoting Answers in Genesis
and its museum to other Christians. Ham’s
most high profile work has taken place since scientists, on the whole, realized
that debates with scientists give creationists credibility. The chestnut “you’re entitled to your own
opinions, but not to your own facts” is the basis for this policy. “Creation scientists,” such as those quoted
by AiG, are asking us to view their opinions as facts, and that doesn’t make
for a good debate. Debaters have to
agree on some facts. This is even
possible in debates between believers and atheists, for instance, but not
between scientists and creationists. As
such, not only does the debate do nothing but elevate the credibility of
creationists, it fails to add any information to the discussion. A couple of weeks ago I sent Bill Nye an
admittedly quixotic email pointing this out.
I know he received a lot of such communications because of his answers
to the media in the week leading up to the debate.
Bill Nye’s stated goal is to expose
people to the ideas of science and evolution.
He is a skilled professional in this regard. He asserts that the teaching of creationism
is abusive to children who should be taught facts and critical thinking. All admirable stuff. He also says that the lack of acceptance of
the theory of evolution and an inability to think scientifically will hurt the
United States in the world market of ideas.
I’m sure this is true, but I don’t think it’s that good of an
argument. Pointing out that the result
of an idea is undesirable is not an argument that the idea is logically untrue. I can’t help feeling that Nye doesn’t really
think this is a prime reason to teach evolution; he even inserted a kind of
disclaimer about the desirability of U.S. superiority at one point. And would Nye really think that it would be
OK if children in, say, various African nations were being taught biblical
literalism by Christian or
Wahhabist missionaries?
Well, versions of both of those groups are doing that in Africa. I’m sure Nye detests it as much as most of us.
Anyway, despite Nye’s good intentions, I wasn’t looking forward to the debate
because of the grandstand it afforded Answers in Genesis.
I’m sure that many writers across
the internet have already analysed all of the points made by the debaters. My goal here is to talk more generally about
what the debaters were doing and the context of the debate. Perhaps the spirit will move me to chime in
about some of the specifics later, but I doubt it. The whole point is that creationists want us,
the majority of people who don’t share their religion, to accept their beliefs
as rational and scientific. Many atheists and believers of various stripes, are
incredulous that this upsurge in creationism could be happening. I must admit that I used to be without an
explanation for creationism myself. Over
the past couple of years I’ve come to some conclusions that are a bit more believable
to me than the obvious idea that a certain number of us are just stupid. While these ideas are not entirely
unsatisfying, they don’t auger well for Bill Nye’s hopes for America’s scientific, technological
and economic future. Fundamentalist
churches are here in the US because of the free market of religion that is rightly
enshrined in the constitution. As is
often pointed out by religious apologists talking about morality (something
only touched upon lightly in the Ham/Nye debate) a character in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov states “If there
is no god, then everything is permitted.”
Well, if there is freedom of religion, all religion is permitted. The social ecology of religion here in the US
is different to its expression in most other times and places. Religions compete for souls the same way that
businesses compete for dollars. When flying
into Louisville’s airport from the south you can look down at a megachurch that
appears quite like a shopping mall, except for the much more appealing
architecture—perhaps not surprising if it was designed to be viewed from on
high.
So as an atheist, it doesn’t seem
surprising that one of these various religions
is more popular than any another, at least here in the United States. The existence of biblical literalism and its
particular manifestation in creationism make perfect sense to this atheist. The history of various communities colonizing
and recolonizing regions of the U.S. is like a Burgess Shale for religious diversity the like of
which I am unaware of at any other time other than the (awesome!) early Christian heresies(though I’d be delighted to learn of other instances or alternative
views). A burst of diversification (the Cambrian explosion) was observed in the Cambrian geologic period as
creatures evolved to fill newly available niches. Likewise, there were periods of rapid
diversification in the fossil record after extinction events. I think the
diversity of religions here in the U. S. are analogous to this biological diversity. For instance, creationism is flourishing because doctrines
that might have previously held it in check (i.e. state-like or state-affiliated religions
that exist partly to preserve national interests and therefore are science/technology
friendly) are prevented from doing so by the first amendment. While I am nauseated whenever he opens his
mouth I must admit I could stand up and do a little dance because I know that
Ken Ham can’t be stopped by (for instance) the Catholic Church, Queen Elizabeth
II or the king of Saudi Arabia. Mormonism,
Scientology, Quakers, Shakers, dozens of different types of Baptists, hundreds
of cults and sects strive, thrive, and die in a religious ecosystem analogous to
a lake that has been made inaccessible to predators by a geological anomaly. In
my metaphor this landslide cutting off the lake is the separation of church and
state. The separation of church and
state can in turn be seen as a trait which allowed the states to symbiotically unify
against a common predator (the England of King George). Ken Ham’s ministry is clearly doing better here
in Kentucky than it might in some European countries where some religions are
state supported, for instance.
Having said this I want stumble blindfolded
through the postmodern minefield and emphasize that creationism is bad for
humans because it is ultimately based on a misunderstanding of an objective
reality. I’m of the opinion that it is
immoral to deny that there is an objective reality because to do so is to deny
the agency of other conscious beings. A
misunderstanding about what is real for all of us is dangerous, and unjust I don’t think that people have to agree about
everything. As far as I’m concerned
there could be a pantheon of gods for each of the seven billion of us as long
as we all can have the peace and justice without which suffering abounds. That would be pretty cool. But we do have a problem when a cultural
entity emerges, such as creationism, which is opposed to seeing the world as it
really is and intrudes into aspects of life common to all of us. We have a problem because Creationism as preached
by Ken Ham claims that reality is based on a particular bible. The elaborate hoax – it seems inadequate to
call it a lie – that involves a complete revision of all we know about biology,
geology, physics, you name it.
Creationism should be opposed on the grounds that it is an intellectual
Ponzi scheme. It might seem cool, but
only the people selling it ultimately benefit.
So if it’s wrong to oppress Ken Ham
the way he’d clearly have no problems oppressing the rest of us, and if it’s
wrong to debate him the way that Bill Nye just did, what is to be done? Ignoring creationism is appealing, but it may
not be enough. Putting on equivalent dog
and pony (or dinosaur and caveman) shows may be effective, but seems
tawdry. These days when I go to a
natural history museum I have a different sense of what is on display than I
did twenty five years ago. I’m always
aware that the exhibits are responding in part to creationism. I think it may be extremely important to
emphasize the verbs of science rather than the nouns. Creationists have real dinosaur skeletons in
their museum, which means a dinosaur skeleton has all of a sudden become a “so
what” item. When I was in high school I
was required to read in assembly, which was a religious service. I don’t remember all of
the things I chose but I know that I got away with a number of secular items
(Walt Whitman, various peacenik rants, etc) along with Bible verses that I
found less objectionable in those days than I do now. I suppose I want the experience of youth
today to be somewhat as mine was, only better.
Young people need to experience real freedom of expression and of
intellectual exploration. Creationism,
and all forms of fundamentalism, deny this.
What helped me was empowerment.
We need to empower people to think for themselves. That’s not just a matter of making sure Darwin
is in textbooks. Empowering people is a
matter of making sure that real opportunities – money, education, jobs—are available
to people who want to pursue them. Bill
Nye did a good job making science sound fun, inspiring, challenging and
important. Still, I worry that it might
not be clear to children seeing this debate what the real difference is between
behaving like a scientist and taking things on faith. The final questions posed
to the debaters made this clear—Ham is ultimately about the Bible and Nye is
about inquiry. Nonetheless, Ham’s litany
of denials of scientific fact and roster of alleged scientists who agree with
him might be hard for members of the public to discount.
Atheists and believers differ hugely
in their explanations for reality. They
also appear to feel that their views make a huge difference to themselves. But it’s
not entirely clear that in western society being religious has a great bearing
on the practical aspects of how a person lives in relation to others. If it did there would be observable
differences between atheists and between the believers of various religions in
terms of how many are locked up in jail, well educated, successful in relationships, happy, wealthy, mentally
ill, and so on. While there are trends they are by no means significantand some are also contradictory. (PhilZuckerman, Sociology Compass ) For instance, religious people appear to
be more likely to be happy than atheists, but proportionally there are fewer atheists in jail. Religious and atheist marriages succeed and
fail at the same rate in the U.S. and while statistics show religious peoplegiving to charity (such as AiG) more than atheists it is not entirely clear this is the case when churches are removed from the lists of charities. I would contend that despite the loving hearts of the vast majority of believers, many religious beliefs
have a toxic affect on the America I see around me. There are large groups of people with no
qualms regarding imposing on the rest of us their ideas on the morality of non-heterosexual
relationships, women’s health, media censorship, and the role of the state in
religion. Fortunately, freedom of religion is freedom to
practice one’s own religion, not to impose its values on the general population. This is the essential take away from the
Nye/Ham debate. The entire two hour
conversation could be summed up in Ham saying that nothing would change his
mind and Nye saying that evidence would change his. To me, all religious concepts have the feel
of fantasy fiction, sometimes boring and predictable, but often enthralling,
horrific or magical. But even though the
overall effect of religion may or may not be detrimental to our human
flourishing, it is clear to me that creationism holds us back as a species. Ken Ham proudly demonstrated that his views
are inflexible and not susceptible to
the checks and balances that the scientific community provides. Ideas that don’t change are not part of our
human future. The efforts of both
religious and non-religious people are needed to rein in excesses such as AiG
and climate change denial. Like Ken Ham,
I think there is a book of life, but mine is way larger than Ham’s. I see
that book not as one of the many contradictory sacred texts, but as the ongoing
narrative of art, science and culture that humanity is writing.
Andy Dyson
No comments:
Post a Comment